Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence Govt. Of India New Delhi And 3 Others vs Sl-04713h Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar Singh
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 7484 of 2024
Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence Govt. of India New Delhi
and 3 others
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sl-04713H Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar Singh
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Misra,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramesh Chandra,
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred against
the judgment and final order dated 31.05.2023 passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow
(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) in OA No.110 of
2023.
BRIEF FACTUAL CONSPECTUS
2. The relevant facts in brief for the purpose of
deciding this petition are detailed herein below.
3. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian
Army on 03.01.1985, Commissioned on 02.04.2002 and
retired on 30.09.2021 (A/N) in Low Medical Category. At
the time of retirement from service, the Release Medical
2
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
Board (RMB) held at Military Hospital Secunderabad on
27.03.2021 assessed his disability 'PRIMARY
HYPERTENSION (I 10.0)' @ 30% for life and opined the
disability to be neither attributable to nor aggravated
(NANA) by service. The respondent's claim for grant of
disability pension was rejected vide letter dated
26.08.2021. The respondent preferred First Appeal which
too was rejected vide letter dated 03.03.2022. The
respondent preferred Second Appeal dated 11.05.2022.
The respondent filed Original Application No. 500 of 2022
which was disposed off with direction to the respondents
to decide the respondent's Second Appeal dated
11.05.2022 vide order dated 12.10 2022. Thereafter, the
Second Appeal of the respondent too was rejected vide
letter dated 11.01.2023. Consequently, the respondent’s
claims for disability pension were rejected.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for
disability pension, the respondent successfully
approached the Tribunal in OA No. 110 of 2023 which was
heard with other applicants seeking similar reliefs.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Before the Tribunal it was pleaded by the
respondent that he had been found medically fit at the
time of enrolment and nothing adverse was noted at that
point of time and he became afflicted with the said
disease during his service which had nothing to do with
the family conditions and since the said disease
developed in course of his service, he was entitled to the
disability pension.
3
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
6. The petitioners contested the claim of the
respondent before the Tribunal by contending that the
respondent had been posted at peace station at the time
of onset of the disease and being deployed in peace
stations, and it could not have contributed to the said
illness nor can the military service be said to have
aggravated the disease, which was confirmed by the
Medical Board on examination of the respondent as
mentioned above. Further, it was contended that nothing
was brought on record to contradict the finding of the
Medical Board and as such the claim of the respondent
could not be entertained.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of Union of
India that the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the
opinion given by the Medical Board, where it has been
opined that the disease contacted by the opposite party is
neither attributable nor aggravated by the military
service. It is submitted that preference has to be given to
the opinion of the Medical Board and consequently, the
order of the Tribunal is arbitrary and deserves to be
interfered with.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and
submits that posting of the respondent would indicate
that during his service tenure he has been posted in field
as well as forward areas. It was submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly considered the fact that even when
armed personnel are posted in peace areas then also
there is stress and strain arising due to such posting,
inasmuch as, even at a peace station there is pressure of
4
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
rigorous training and stress and strain of military service
exist. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others,
(2013) 7 SCC 316 , and accordingly claim of respondent
was allowed.
9. In support of the claim, a number of decisions
were relied upon namely; Union of India v. Keshar Singh ,
(2007) 12 SCC 675; Union of India v. Surinder Singh
Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747; Secretary, Ministry of
Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (Dead) through Lrs., (2009) 9
SCC 140; Union of India v. Jujhar Singh, (2011) 7 SCC
735; Union of India v. Talwinder Singh, (2012) 5 SCC
480, No. 14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav v. Union of
India, (2019) 9 SCC 667, and the decision of Kerala High
Court in Baby v. Union of India, (2003) 3 KLT 362 (FB).
FINDINGS OF THE ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL
10. The Tribunal, on consideration of the aforesaid
decisions and relevant Rules made the following
observations in the impugned judgment, which are
reproduced herebelow:—
6. The law on attributability of a disability has
already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Versus
Union of India & Others, reported in (2013) 7
Supreme Court Cases 316. In this case the
Apex Court took note of the provisions of the
Pensions Regulations, Entitlement Rules and
the General Rules of Guidance to Medical
Officers to sum up the legal position
emerging from the same in the following
words.
5
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
"29.1. Disability pension to be granted
to an individual who is invalided from
service on account of a disability which
is attributable to or aggravated by
military service in non-battle casualty
and is assessed at 20% or over. The
question whether a disability is
attributable to or aggravated by
military service to be determined
under the Entitlement Rules for
Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of
Appendix II (Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in
sound physical and mental condition
upon entering service if there is no
note or record at the time of entrance.
In the event of his subsequently being
discharged from service on medical
grounds any deterioration in his health
is to be presumed due to service [Rule
5 read with Rule 14(b)].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the
claimant (employee), the corollary is
that onus of proof that the condition
for non-entitlement is with the
employer. A claimant has a right to
derive benefit of any reasonable doubt
and is entitled for pensionary benefit
more liberally (Rule 9).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have
been as having arisen in service, it
must also be established that the
conditions of military service
determined or contributed to the onset
of the disease and that the conditions
were due to the circumstances of duty
in military service [Rule 14(c)].
29.5. If no note of any disability or
disease was made at the time of
individual's acceptance for military
service, a disease which has led to an
individual's discharge or death will be
deemed to have arisen in service [Rule
14(b)].
6
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
29.6. If medical opinion holds that the
disease could not have been detected
on medical examination prior to the
acceptance for service and that
disease will not be deemed to have
arisen during service, the Medical
Board is required to state the reasons
[Rule 14(b)]; and 29.7. It is
mandatory for the Medical Board to
follow the guidelines laid down in
Chapter II of the Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 -
"Entitlement: General Principles",
including Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred
to above (para 27)."
11. By adopting the aforesaid principles derived
from the decisions relied upon, the Tribunal allowed the
claim as follows :-
7. In view of the settled position of law
on attributability, we find that the RMB
has denied attributability to the
applicant only by endorsing that the
disability' PRIMARY HYPERTENSION
(I10.0)' is neither attributable to nor
aggravated (NANA) by service on the
ground of onset of disability on
09.09.2017 while posted in Peace
location (Bangalore), therefore,
applicant is not entitled to disability
element of disability pension. However,
considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion that
this reasoning of Release Medical Board
for denying disability pension to
applicant is not convincing and doesn't
reflect the complete truth on the matter.
Peace Stations have their own pressure
of rigorous military training and
associated stress and strain of military
service. The applicant was enrolled in
Indian Army on 03.01.1985,
commissioned on 02.04.2004 and the
disability has started after more than 31
7
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
years of Army service i.e. on
09.09.2017. We are therefore of the
considered opinion that the benefit of
doubt in these circumstances should be
given to the applicant in view of
Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India & Ors
(supra), and the disability of the
applicant should be considered as
aggravated by military service.
12. We have heard the parties and gone through
the records.
LAW IN THIS REGARD
13. This Court in the aforesaid decisions of Keshar
Singh (supra); Surinder Singh Rathore (supra); A.V.
Damodaran (supra); Jujhar Singh (supra); Talwinder
Singh (supra) had examined Regulation 173 of the
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which deals with
the primary conditions of grant of disability pension which
provide, inter alia, that the disability pension would be
granted if it is attributable to or aggravated by the
military service. The said Regulation 173 is accordingly
reproduced herein as below:
“173. Primary conditions for the grant of
disability pension. — Unless otherwise
specifically provided a disability pension
may be granted to an individual who is
invalided from service on account of a
disability which is attributable to or
aggravated by military service and is
assessed at 20 per cent or above.
14. The question as to whether the disability is
attributable to or aggravated by military service is to be
determined as per Appendix II to the said Regulations.
Relevant portions in Appendix II read as follows:
8
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
“2. Disablement or death shall be
accepted as due to military service
provided it is certified that—
(a) The disablement is due to wound,
injury or disease which—
(i) is attributable to military service; or
(ii) existed before or arose during
military service and has been and
remains aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened
by—
(i) a wound, injury or disease which
was attributable to military service, or
(ii) the aggravation by military service
of a wound, injury or disease which
existed before or arose during military
service.
Note.—The rule also covers cases of
death after discharge/invaliding from
service.
3. There must be a causal connection
between disablement or death and
military service for attributability or
aggravation to be conceded.
4. In deciding on the issue of
entitlement all the evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, will be taken
into account and the benefit or
reasonable doubt will be given to the
claimant. This benefit will be given
more liberally to the claimant in field
service case.”
15. Thus, the aforesaid Regulation 173 read with
Appendix II makes it very clear that disability must be
attributable to or aggravated by military service for
purposes of grant of disability pension and what amounts
9
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
to disability has been elaborated in Appendix II of the
Regulations as quoted above. The Appendix II clarifies
that there must be a causal connection between the
disablement or death and military service for
attributability to be considered. Clause 4 of the aforesaid
Appendix II further provides that in deciding on the issue
of entitlement, all the evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit
or reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant and this
benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field
service case.
16. As to how a disability can be attributed to
service has been further explained clearly in Regulation
423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed
Forces 1983, which has been also referred to by the
Tribunal and by the Apex Court in the above-mentioned
cases, which is reproduced herein below for easy
reference:
“ 423. Attributability to service .— (a)
For the purpose of determining whether
the cause of a disability or death is or is
not attributable to service, it is immaterial
whether the cause giving rise to the
disability or death occurred in an area
declared to be a field service/active
service area or under normal peace
conditions. It is, however, essential to
establish whether the disability or death
bore a causal connection with the service
conditions. All evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, will be taken into account
and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any,
will be given to the individual. The
evidence to be accepted as reasonable
doubt, for the purpose of these
10
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
instructions, should be of a degree of
cogency, which though not reaching
certainty, nevertheless carry the high
degree of probability. In this connection,
it will be remembered that proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof
beyond a shadow of doubt. If the
evidence is so strong against an individual
as to leave only a remote possibility in his
favour, which can be dismissed with the
sentence ‘of course it is possible but not
in the least probable’ the case is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other
hand, the evidence be so evenly balanced
as to render impracticable a determinate
conclusion one way or the other, then the
case would be one in which the benefit of
doubt could be given more liberally to the
individual, in cases occurring in field
service/active service areas.
(b) The cause of a disability or death
resulting from wound or injury, will be
regarded as attributable to service if the
wound/injury was sustained during the
actual performance of ‘duty’ in armed
forces. In case of injuries which were self-
inflicted or due to an individual's own
serious negligence or misconduct, the
Board will also comment how far the
disability resulted from self-infliction,
negligence or misconduct.
(c) The cause of a disability or death
resulting from a disease will be regarded
as attributable to service when it is
established that the disease arose during
service and the conditions and
circumstances of duty in the armed forces
determined and contributed to the onset
of the disease. Cases, in which it is
established that service conditions did not
determine or contribute to the onset of
the disease but influenced the subsequent
course of the disease, will be regarded as
11
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
aggravated by the service. A disease
which has led to an individual's discharge
or death will ordinarily be deemed to have
arisen in service if no note of it was made
at the time of the individual's acceptance
for service in the armed forces. However,
if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be
stated that the disease could not have
been detected on medical examination
prior to acceptance for service, the
disease will not be deemed to have arisen
during service.
(d) The question, whether a disability or
death is attributable to or aggravated by
service or not, will be decided as regards
its medical aspects by a Medical Board or
by the medical officer who signs the death
certificate. The Medical Board/medical
officer will specify reasons for their/his
opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/
medical officer, insofar as it relates to the
actual cause of the disability or death and
the circumstances in which it originated
will be regarded as final. The question
whether the cause and the attendant
circumstances can be attributed to service
will, however, be decided by the pension
sanctioning authority.
(e) To assist the medical officer who signs
the death certificate or the Medical Board
in the case of an invalid, the CO unit will
furnish a report on:
(i) AFMS F-81 in all cases other than
those due to injuries.
(ii) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other
than battle injuries.
(f) In cases where award of disability
pension or reassessment of disabilities is
concerned, a Medical Board is always
necessary and the certificate of a single
medical officer will not be accepted except
12
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
in case of stations where it is not possible
or feasible to assemble a regular Medical
Board for such purposes. The certificate of
a single medical officer in the latter case
will be furnished on a Medical Board form
and countersigned by the ADMS
(Army)/DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air) .”
17. A careful examination of Regulation 423 of the
Regulation for Medical Services for Armed Forces would
reveal the following aspects:
(i) It is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the
disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a
field service/active service area or under normal peace
conditions.
(ii) It is, however, essential to establish that the
disability or death bore a causal connection with the
service conditions.
(iii) All evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be
taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if
any, will be given to the individual.
(iv) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge
or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in
service if no note of it was made at the time of the
individual's acceptance for service in the armed forces.
(v) However, if the medical opinion holds, for reasons to
be stated that the disease could not have been detected
on medical examination prior to acceptance for service,
the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during
service.
13
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
(vi) The question, whether a disability or death is
attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be
decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board
or by the medical officer who signs the certificate. The
Medical Board/medical officer will specify reasons for
their/his opinion.
(vii) The opinion of the Medical Board/medical officer,
insofar as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or
death and the circumstances in which it originated will be
regarded as final.
(viii) The question whether the cause and the attendant
circumstances can be attributed to service will, however,
be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
(ix) To assist the medical officer who signs the death
certificate or the Medical Board in the case of an invalid,
the CO unit will furnish a report on:
(a) AFMS F-81 : in all cases other than those due to
injuries.
(b) IAFY 2006 : in all cases of injuries other than battle
injuries.
RECORDS CONCERNING MEDICAL BOARD
PROCEEDINGS
18. Having kept the aforesaid aspects in mind, we
have examined the records, more particularly the original
records of the Medical Board Proceedings produced
before us, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2
to the writ petition.
14
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
A careful perusal of the aforesaid medical proceedings
reveals the following:
(I) The details of the field/operational service have been
mentioned in the said proceedings of the Medical Board
(as per Form AFMSF-16), a copy of which is also annexed
as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
(II) It is to be noted that under Regulation 423 (a)
referred to above, it is mentioned that for the purpose of
determining whether the cause of disability is attributable
to the service, it is immaterial that the cause giving rise
to the disability occurred in an area declared to be field
service/active service area or under normal peace
conditions.
(III) In para 2 of Part II of the said Form, the particulars
of the disease from which the respondents was suffering
from are mentioned as follows :-
PART II
Illness,
First Started Date
Where
Approximate
wound,
& Place
treated
treated
injury
dates and
periods
treated
Primary
Hypertension
(I 10.0)
09 Sep 17
CH (AF)
Bangalore
Sep 2017 to
till dt
Bangalore
(IV) The aforesaid entries are, therefore, a clear
acknowledgement of the fact that the respondent was not
suffering from the disease of Primary Hypertension (I-10)
15
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
when he entered the service. Thus, it would be deemed
that this disease arose while in service as provided under
Regulation 423.
(V) Coming to Opinion of the Medical Board of Form
AFMSF-16, the following entries have been made:
PART - VII
Disability Attribut
Aggravate
Detailed Justification
able to
Service
d by
(Y/N)
Service
(Y/N)
Disability originated in Aug
Primary
No No
2017 while serving in
Hypertension
peace area (Bangalore).
(I-10.0)
Thereafter, the offr
continued service in peace
area. As there is no close
time association with
service in Fd/Cl Ops/HAA.
NAHA is conceded as per
Para 43, Ch-VI, GMO-
2008.
(VI) It may be noted that the aforesaid entries in Part
VII are devoid of any details, and clearly shows that the
medical history of the respondent is not recorded. Hence,
it can be said that the Medical Board had not considered
the medical history of the respondent before coming to
the conclusion that the disease of the respondent did not
arise during service.
19. Perusal of the aforesaid entries made in the
Form AFMSF-16 reveals that no reasons have been
assigned at all as regards the nature of disability on
16
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
which the opinion of the Medical Board is based that the
respondent was suffering from Primary Hypertension,
though it has been specifically mentioned therein that the
Medical Board should state fully the reasons with regard
to the disability on which the opinion of the Medical Board
is based.
REQUIREMENT OF REASONED DECISION
20. In our opinion, the requirement to give reasons
by the Medical Board is crucial, critical, decisive and
necessary for the purpose of granting or denying
disability pension and it is not a mere formality, but a
necessary material on the basis of which the pension
sanctioning authority has to decide about the grant or
refusal of disability pension.
21. As noticed above, it has been specifically
provided under Clause (d) of Regulation 423 as quoted
that the question as to whether the disability is
attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be
decided as regards its medical aspects by the Medical
Board and the Medical Board will specify reasons for their
opinion and the question whether the cause and
attendant circumstances can be attributed to service will
be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
22. Thus, this requirement to give reasons by the
Medical Board about their opinion is in our view
absolutely necessary as also required under Regulation
423(d) for the reason that the fate of the future career of
the serviceman is going to be decided by the opinion of
the Medical Board, which is to be treated as final as
17
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
regards the cause of disability and the circumstances in
which the disability originated. The continuation of the
service of the concerned serviceman and as to whether
he will be entitled to disability pension is dependent on
the opinion of the Medical Board which is also to be
treated as the final one.
23. Hence, the rules mandate giving of reasons by
the Medical Board while rendering its opinion. The
reasons given by the Medical Board would obviously be
the basis for determination by the competent authority
whether the serviceman would be discharged from
service and whether he would get disability pension.
24. Accordingly, in our opinion, if the serviceman is
discharged from service or denied the disability pension
on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of
reasons, it would strike at the root of the action taken by
the authority and such action cannot be sustained in law.
25. We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken
by the authority for the discharge of a serviceman and
the serviceman is denied disability pension on the basis
of a report of the Medical Board wherein no reasons have
been disclosed for the opinion so given, such an action of
the authority will be unsustainable in law.
BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION
26. We must appreciate the fact that the provisions
for grant of disability pension are in the nature of a
beneficial scheme intended to provide succour to
servicemen in hard times who have been discharged from
service after having served the nation with dedication.
18
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
Accordingly, a liberal approach must be adopted while
construing such beneficial provisions. This approach has
also been considered by the Apex Court in Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod,
(2022) 16 SCC 343, albeit, in the context of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 as applicable to Anganwadi workers,
the principles of which, in our opinion, are equally
applicable in the present case dealing with disability
pension. In the said case it was observed as follows:
“ 55. When social security legislations are
being interpreted, it always has to be
interpreted liberally with a beneficial
interpretation and has to be given the widest
possible meaning which the language permits,
known as beneficial interpretation. When a
statute is meant for the benefit of a particular
class and if a word in the statute is capable of
two meanings i.e. one which would preserve
the benefits and one which would not, then the
former is to be adopted.”
27. Under these circumstances, a much more
liberal view ought to be adopted while dealing with the
cases of discharge of servicemen from service on account
of suffering from Primary Hypertension (I-10) as they
may face several impediments and difficulties in proving
the causal connection of the said disease with the military
service.
28. It is also to be noted that this is not a case
where the opposite party had applied for discharge of
service on account of suffering from Primary
Hypertension (I-10.0). It was the authority themselves
who after observing his condition decided to discharge
him from service after obtaining the opinion of the
19
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
Medical Board. In such a situation, where the serviceman
himself had not applied for discharge, but has been
discharged by the authority, the onus of proving the
disability and grounds of denying disability pension would
lie heavily on the authority. Since it is the statutory
requirement that the opinion of the Medical Board is to be
the basis of the discharge, in our view, if the opinion of
Medical Board is devoid of reasons, the act of the
authority based on mere opinion sans reasons can
certainly be questioned.
29. According to this Court, if the decision of the
authority to discharge a serviceman is based on a
medical report which is devoid of reasons, which are
required to be given as also mandated by rules as
discussed above, such an act of the authority specially
when it denies any post discharge benefit will be
rendered invalid in the eyes of law.
30. In such cases, it can be said that the
authorities have failed to discharge the burden of
establishing that the employee deserved to be discharged
from service on account of such illness without any
benefit of pension and such action has to be considered
arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.
31. Assigning reasons for the opinion of the Medical
Board in the present case also becomes imperative and
salutary for the reason that while the respondent had
pleaded that at the time of entry in the service, this
disease was not detected, but only after about 32 years
of service and hence, as per rules also, it will be deemed
that it arose while in service, the Medical Board gave the
20
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
opinion that it was Primary Hypertension (I 10.0). The
opinion of the Medical Board is, thus, inconsistent with
the plea of the respondent. Hence, it was incumbent upon
the Medical Board to assign reasons as to why the
disease could not be detected at the time of entry in
service and as the onset of the disease was only in
August 2017 which is after about 32 years of service of
entry in service. Without there being any reasons given
by the Medical Board for their opinion of Primary
Hypertension (I 10.0), we are afraid, it would be unfair to
the respondent that such an opinion of the Medical Board
is to be taken as final and binding to deprive any service
benefit to the respondent.
32. We further find that there is sufficient medical
opinion existing with regard to Living And working in high
altitude which may cause hypertension by putting the
body in state of low oxygen and it can be a temporary
state or a chronic medical condition. It is also well known
that poor oxygen diffusion can lead to hypoxia, or low
oxygen levels and to compensate the body kicks off a
cascade of reactions including increasing heart rate,
constructing blood vessels in the lungs and retaining
fluids all of which can elevate blood pressure. The
medical board ought to have taken all the aforesaid
factors while considering the case of the opposite party
for grant of disability pension, and onus lay upon them to
discuss and consider these factors and give adequate
reasons before rejecting his claim for grant of disability
pension.
21
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
33. Thus, in the facts and circumstances discussed
above, we are of the view that while there cannot be any
dispute about the correctness of the legal principles
enunciated by the Apex Court in the above-mentioned
cases of Keshar Singh (supra), Surinder Singh Rathore
(supra), A.V. Damodaran (supra); Jujhar Singh (supra)
and Talwinder Singh (supra), we would hasten to add
that the opinion of the Medical Board which is to be
treated as final and binding as per aforesaid Regulations,
has to be supported by reasons for arriving at the
conclusion about the nature of medical disability, before
the same can be acted upon for the purpose of discharge
of a serviceman and denial of disability pension as
otherwise, a valuable right of a serviceman to get retiral
benefits who has rendered long years of service for the
nation would be unjustly deprived.
34. Accordingly, we hold that the order of discharge
of the respondent and denial of disability pension to him
based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons
to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid.
CONCLUSION
35. In the present case, the respondent was enrolled in
the Indian Army on 03.01.1985 and commissioned on
02.04.2002 and retired on 30.09.2021 (A/N) in Low
Medical Category. At the time of retirement from service,
the Release Medical Board (RMB) held at Military Hospital
Secunderabad on 27.03.2021 assessing his disability
'PRIMARY HYPERTENSION (110.0)' @ 30% for life and
opining that the disabilities were neither attributable to
22
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
nor aggravated by service. Consequently, his claim for
grant of disability pension was rejected.
36. The Tribunal, after considering the entire record
of the RMB as well as the postings of the respondent,
observed that the disease was detected during his
service. While allowing the claim of the respondent, the
Tribunal held that even at peace stations, the stress and
stain of military service cannot be ignored, and that
rigorous military training and associated stress and stain
are inherent even in the peace postings. It was further
observed that the reasons given by the RMB were not in
conformity with the relevant regulations and no sufficient
reasons were recorded for denying disability pension to
the respondent.
37. Considering the rival contentions, we find that
there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the
Tribunal. We find that there is no reason given by the
Medical Board to reject the claim of disability pension to
the respondent. Hence, it cannot be said that the disease
is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service
in terms of para 43 of chapter VI of GMO(MP)-2008.
38. Resultantly, while we do not disturb the order
of discharge of the respondents from service on the
ground of medical invalidity due to Primary Hypertension
and Transient Ischemic Attack (RT) MCA Territory, we
direct that the respondent be granted disability pension
with immediate effect with all attending benefits, as per
rules.
23
WRIA No. - 7484 of 2024
39. Considering the case of the respondent in light
of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 as well as in the case of
Rajumon T.M. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064 , no ground for interference
is made out.
40. We are in agreement with the legal propositions
emanating out of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as culled out by the Tribunal as reproduced above.
However, while applying the same in the facts of the
present case, we do not find any distinguishing grounds
in the present case that would persuade us to arrive at a
different conclusion from that of the Tribunal.
41. The petition being devoid of merits is
accordingly dismissed .
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ashish Dewal
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH DEWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench